![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Battlefield 3 Target Framerate Poll
- Thread starter Brent_Justice
- Start date
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
I'm just not willing to make a game horribly ugly anymore just to get 60-80-100 FPS like I was back when I was a kid. I remember getting Q2 to run at 80-100FPS with a config that basically made nearly every texture a solid color, and loved it. Now I'm more willing to give up a few FPS to enjoy a game's visuals, I'm not competeting in any leagues or making any money, if I lose a few kills per match because of it, big deal. Doesn't help that I also run 2560x1600, BF3 is really making my 6970s work.
randomhero58
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Messages
- 618
A 40 minimum is pretty acceptable to me. Below that and it gets sluggish IMO.
For online shooties, I get more picky than normal. I'd say 30 fps minimum, other maybe an occasional low dip (it happens sometimes randomly and a result shouldn't be invalidated because of it). For average, look more in the 50s. More is nicer but at that point things feel pretty good.
A good responsive feel is just real important, hence higher standards than most games.
A good responsive feel is just real important, hence higher standards than most games.
CallMeTheStig
n00b
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 59
I'm going to shoot for 60 fps average on 32 player maps and 50 fps average on 64 player maps.
The lowest acceptable fps drop to me is probably something in the mid 30s - low 40s.
The lowest acceptable fps drop to me is probably something in the mid 30s - low 40s.
Commander0Zero
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 397
60fps is what I'm shooting for at 1900x1200 45 is what I can live with.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
+1, exactly my thoughts. I play games to have fun, not be a competitive asshole who only cares about K/D ratios. Who cares if I'm not getting 150 FPS? As long as there's not majorly noticeable lag/stutter, I'm happy. I also like my games to look good. If I didn't, I wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars on PC parts.
I'm very competitive, I'm still using an old school $1800 CRT setup and wont change because having no input lag is the way to go. Even my buddies 120hz asus gaming panel isn't that impressive to me. I love the ability of running whatever resolution I want and not having to stay at a native resolution.
I prefer min of 85fps, below that I can really see a difference and notice choppiness. Please don't give me the eye can't see a difference, don't wanna hear it.
It's crazy how changing to a lower resolution effects BF3. 1360x768 @ 170hz is how I play now, yes it's formatted correctly, black bars top and bottom. With a Q9650 @ 4.3ghz it's at 65% usage and gtx570 @ 900mhz running ultra w/ no HBAO and 4xAA I don't drop below 85fps outside and don't drop below 100fps indoors, GPU usage is around 85-99%.
I just picked up a ROG Matrix gtx 580 platinum at lunch today and hope to get it OC'd to 1000mhz. I'll then change it up to 1600x900 and hopefully get the same fps.
I prefer min of 85fps, below that I can really see a difference and notice choppiness. Please don't give me the eye can't see a difference, don't wanna hear it.
It's crazy how changing to a lower resolution effects BF3. 1360x768 @ 170hz is how I play now, yes it's formatted correctly, black bars top and bottom. With a Q9650 @ 4.3ghz it's at 65% usage and gtx570 @ 900mhz running ultra w/ no HBAO and 4xAA I don't drop below 85fps outside and don't drop below 100fps indoors, GPU usage is around 85-99%.
I just picked up a ROG Matrix gtx 580 platinum at lunch today and hope to get it OC'd to 1000mhz. I'll then change it up to 1600x900 and hopefully get the same fps.
MacLeod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,280
An average of 40 seems to be good for me as a minimum. Anything in the 30's and I notice its playing a little slower but the 40's seem fine and more natural. Of course 60 is ideal but until I can afford a $500 video card, I know Ill have to settle for 40's on a couple games like Metro and Crysis.
Anything below 30 is unacceptable to me. I can definitely notice it running very slow and its very annoying.
Anything below 30 is unacceptable to me. I can definitely notice it running very slow and its very annoying.
Blackstone
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,580
I think minimum frame rate is more useful because if you are getting dips, it can impact your game. Chances are, if you are averaging 60 you are getting a lot less when things get really intense. The hardware is either out of the way of your game experience or it isn't. Anytime I get dips below 50 I consider myself in "time to upgrade" territory.
piscian18
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 11,020
60 preferably
Battlefield Bad Company 2 seems to be unplayable around 42 FPS average since the dips are in the lower 20s
Battlefield Bad Company 2 seems to be unplayable around 42 FPS average since the dips are in the lower 20s
The problem with BF3 is running ultra + 4xmsaa doesn't look significantly better than high with post AA but performs at about half the fps. I even run a mix of high and medium with textures at ultra and SSAO. It performs close to 90fps with a single card and still looks pretty decent. Its about balancing looks with performance and with this game there is definitely a sweet spot that gets you the best of both. Its hard to make this game look bad actually unless you run low shadow, low resolution, no AA, no SSAO.
sirmonkey1985
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,414
§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1037846908 said:
lol 1360x768? yeah.. enough said.. sorry dude but i'd rather play a game at 20fps then play a game at the same resolution i was playing games at in the late 80's, early 90's. same exact reason why i think minecraft is a piece of junk.
Have you ran that on a 21" $1800 CRT before? It still looks crisp and sharp with 4xAA in BF3. Pixels are still tight, no blurry text or anything, it's not what you think it is. Anyways, that rez won't be needed anymore. I've got this gtx580 stable at 980mhz and running at 1600x900, not dropping below 80fps. Using this 16x9 rez really improves your FOV also.
Last edited:
sirmonkey1985
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,414
§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1037848366 said:
i don't care what the pixels look like.. why the hell would i use an 1800 dollar CRT to play a game at 1/4 the resolution it can display.. and no i quit using CRT's the day they became obsolete and have no plans on ever going back to them.
timtheenchantor
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2005
- Messages
- 962
45-50 here. I run 1920x1080 and prefer pretty graphics - but if it hits 30 fps, I have to turn things down. Anything higher than 40 is not a huge deal to me, I don't play pro anyways.
Brackle
Old Timer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,568
§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1037848366 said:
I use to own a Eizo 21inch CRT monitor that went up past 1600x1200. I use to play CS at 1600x1200@85hz. I think the monitor brand new was around $1200?
Either way I agree with Sirmonkey. As soon as I could buy a 20inch LCD monitor I made the switch.
Colors were ALOT better.....Size and space were OMG badass to me.
But I do agree somewhat that a CRT is better then LCD when it comes to syncing and playing at a higher Framerate if you use Vsync.
But thats about as far as I would go.
p.s. target minimum Frames would be 50, max 60. I want at LEAST an average of 55 max everything!. Thats what [H] is all about right?
Drudenhaus
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,126
I keep lowing my settings because my current 45 FPS feels like crap whereaas I'm normally happy with 35-40 FPS. Weird...
IMO the AA modes introduce some weird lag. MSAA especially and post-process AA to a small extent.
Try disabling all AA and see if the game doesnt feel more responsive at the same fps. I felt the MSAA lag bug in BC2 but no one seemed to talk about it.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
Thanks for the feedback everyone, I appreciate it, I'm getting the general consensus that for multiplayer you guys want it between 50-60 FPS at least. With singleplayer, you'd find 30-40 FPS acceptable. For multiplayer in this game, that gives us a good idea where we should target.
Drudenhaus
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,126
With a GTX 285 @ 1920x1200, I don't have AA enabled. It would be a slide show with that on
Thanks for the thought though!It's all personal preference, I play at the resolution that makes me happy that I enjoy looking at. I just don't think you really know what your talking about since you have not seen it 1st hand and actually gamed on a CRT running 100-170hz with fps to match.
My roommate just got a Acer GD235 black/orange 23.6" 2ms 120hz screen and honestly he says he misses the GDM F520 that I was letting him use. He said my CRT looked smoother and looked better gaming at 1600x1200 @ 100hz then his Acer 120hz panel at 1920x1080. He is getting lower fps now since he has to run a higher rez and even with the panel being 120hz it just doesn't feel as smooth.
Don't get me wrong that 23.6" 120hz Acer he has is way better then all of the other 60hz panels I've seen at LAN parties. It's just not on par with a properly tuned GDM-F520.
Well anyways I was only running this 1360x768 resolution so I wouldn't drop below 85fps. Last night I just installed a gtx580 OC'd it to 1000mhz 2hrs game play in BF3 stable so fat. I now run 1600x900 @ 85hz, it only drops to low 70's in fps ultra settings 4xAA no HBAO or motion blur. This looks really sharp on my screen and plays super smooth.
Tamlin_WSGF
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,116
dr.stevil
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 9,266
As with any FPS, 60 is an absolute minimum for me. I prefer closer to 120fps... especially in multiplayer FPS's
Sounds about right.
Singleplayer=pretty,
multiplayer=to busy to kill to care
Yeah, that's right on; never could understand peoples concern w/ map quality on online multiplayer game play; I'm too busy to care much.
Korben Dallas
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 561
60 for sure. I came from my single core Athlon 64 trying to play games at 20 fps. There is no way in hell I would settle for anything less than 50.
And concerning BF3, I actually turned down all graphics to low. Couldn't stand how blurry the game looked with some of the settings on. AA is at 2x, and AF is the only setting that is maxed. The game still looks pretty damn good and all the while I'm enjoying my consistent 60fps.
And concerning BF3, I actually turned down all graphics to low. Couldn't stand how blurry the game looked with some of the settings on. AA is at 2x, and AF is the only setting that is maxed. The game still looks pretty damn good and all the while I'm enjoying my consistent 60fps.
HotShotMedic
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 651
turn off post AA if you want to sharpen it up. that setting is aweful.
That's probably about right - 4xAA seems to take a toll, and ultra also.